Talk:Face negotiation theory

Untitled
explian the negotiation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mosimpkins.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 20:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Face Negotiation Theory → Face negotiation theory –

Per WP:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization"), and that theories and laws are usually downcased, and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony  (talk)  11:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Peer Review from Yuting
Hi, Vision! I think you did a great job writing the short introduction paragraph of the face negotiation theory. The original entry was too short and ambiguous to capture the insight of the theory. I totally agree with you that the original page was written in a manner of dry literature review. Your plan to reorganize the subtitles and add a background section is very reasonable. And certainly, there is necessity to include more secondary or tertiary sources to make the page more objective. In this sense, you could add in a new section of Criticism to address the limitations of the theory. Here are two more specific suggestions to the Theoretical propositions Section and Studies on the theory Section.
 * In the section of Theoretical propositions, I suggest you to create a table with the 24 propositions. Because when I read the section, I felt so swamped by the items and had no patience to go through. I would prefer to have a table that helps me understand different levels of the theory and propositions. In addition, this table could contribute to clearer layout of the page.
 * As for the original section of “Studies on theory”, I suggest you change the title as readers might get confused. I thought this section was about the criticism and limitations of the theory, whereas in fact it is about the theory application.Yutingmissdelphi (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review from Dur
Hi Vision,

I think you’ve pretty much addressed all the main weaknesses of the current Face Negotiation Theory article in your progress report plan. I agree that the lead needs to be adjusted, my suggestion for the lead part is to have it a paragraph long in which a reader can go through it and get a well-rounded idea of the theory without needing to read the full article. Another suggestion you might want to consider is in regards to the references. The eight references used lack sufficient support when compared to the amount of information included in the article, so adding more references and footnotes throughout the entire article will make it a more reliable source of information. In addition, the article only links two words to other Wikipedia articles which is one sign of a weak wiki article, so you might want to reference other Wikipedia articles via linking certain words to their related Wikipedia pages.

My final suggestion is editing the table of content in other words restructuring the sections, I suggest that you consider using subsections within the main sections. Since in the current article each main section has a vast amount of information that could be categorized into subsections, making it easier for readers to navigate within the page. For example the bolded titles under the Taxonomies section could each serve as a subsection which will be highlighted in the table of content for ease of navigation and for readers to be able to identify the outline of the article by looking at the table of content.

Best of Luck on this project! Dk802 (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Grace M.
Hi, this is just a general comment about the page. In the introduction, the creators of the theory are mentioned but not cited here. Perhaps they should be cited from the beginning so the readers know this is legitimate? I think the creator's original publication (paper? book? article?) should be used in this instance.

--Mgmaliska (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC) Mgmgaliska

Peer Review from MC
Hello!

Your goals for this page are all are relevant and interesting. I like how you linked other Wikipedia articles to the theory creators. Your explanation of "face" is also helpful. Explaining "face" is really important because it can be a confusing concept, but I think your definition is easy to understand.

I do think sections (like the intro) need more citations. Other sentences throughout the article (like, "The United States is an example of a small power distance culture, while Japan embodies a large power distance culture") probably need direct citations or need to be removed since they are making very definitive claims that are somewhat based on opinion.

There are a few typos, like in this sentence,"In collectivist cultures such as Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Colombia, place more value on "we" vs. "I"". It should probably be, "In collectivist cultures such as Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Colombia, more value is placed on "we" vs. "I"" The article also alternates between collectivist and collectivistic/ individualist and individualistic, which can be confusing. I don't think there is a difference other than one version of the word is an adjective and the other is a noun, but I think one version should be used throughout.

The Theoretical Propositions section is very text heavy and overwhelming to look at. I think it could use some images or more differentiated text. I like your application addition! There are probably more examples of business email etiquette resulting in "face" issues.

Overall, it is a very informative page and your additions are great. I think the page just needs to be edited down in certain sections, since it is very long and dense, and the page could use some aesthetic work.

~MC --Kekile (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review from Colleen
Hey!

I see you've already begun work on this page, and your goals for the page are great. I think your suggestions for additions to the applications section look really good, and could help round out the page nicely.

There are a few spots in the background/definition of the theory which could use more explanation. For example, the text mentions the components of "content, relational, and identity," but I'm still not sure what those mean exactly. The explanations of those terms could be expanded for clarity. There are a lot of terms in this theory, and the explanations for them are integrated throughout, but there are a couple places where the terms are used, and then defined later on in the page (the meaning of power distance, for example). You could add a "terms" section towards the beginning to help clarify things, or just make sure that the first reference to a term includes its definition-however makes the most sense to you.

And just a couple of minor things in case you wanted to clean up some of the existing text--under "Safe sex negotiation" the study is explained but the results of the study are not, so it could be helpful to see what was learned from applying this theory. And finally, the "criticism" section lists some important points, but is also very short, so if you are looking to expand a little, this section might be one to add to.

This is a really interesting theory, and there is a lot of good information there, so I think making it just a little clearer or easier to understand in some areas could go a long way. Great ideas for your page goals, and best of luck finding images that work (this is a good idea too)!

CollEKim (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

BHines10 (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Bibliography

Goffman, E. (1965). The presentation of self in everyday life.(15th edition). Garden City, NY. Double Day. Heisler, J. M., Ellis, J. B. (2008). Motherhood and the Construction of “Mommy Identity”: Messages about Motherhood and Face Negotiation in Communication Quarterly. Nov2008, Vol. 56 Issue 4, p445-467. 23p. 1 Chart. DOI: 10.1080/01463370802448246. Retrieved from 

Hopkins, A. (2015). Face management theory: Modern conceptualizations and future directions. Vol.7 No. 4. in Inquiries journal. .

Landis, D. R., Bennett, J., Bennett M. (2004). Face negotiation theory in Translating conflict face-negotiation theory into practice. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications. .

Littlejohn, S. & Foss, K. (2011). Theories of human communication. (10th edition). Long Grove, IL. Waveland Press. BHines10 (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

CCT peer edit 2019 -- Wei Zou
The Face Negotiation Theory Wikipedia entry is well-organized with appropriate headings and subheadings to make the reading experience accessible. The author presents a clear and concise definition of the theory in the introduction, and moves on to give readers more background about the theory. This will help readers to conceptually understand the theory. I’d suggest the author take into consideration giving more explicit practical example of the theory, and include some more relevant content by exploring the following readings: “Conflict face-negotiation theory: Tracking its evolutionary journey” by Stella Ting-Toomey is a recent article released in 2017 that will help better understand the theory since its development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeiZou (talk • contribs) 04:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

CCT 752 peer edit 2019
Hi Aijia, The article has a rigorous introduction, which is really nice. My suggestion for this article is to think about rearrange the table of contents and adding a critique chunk. The table of contents is long and full of sub-headings, or even sub-sub-headings. Too many sub-headings would make the headings in a small font size and hard to recognize. It may be workable to break the “Components” chunk into several individual chunks to make the page more organized and easy-to-read. Besides, maybe the “Notes” chunk is not quite necessary and the “Reference” chunk need to develop with footnote links. Also, the “Application” chunk is a sum of various researches using the face negotiation. Some of the applications are long summaries of individual researches. I think the first application, “Intercultural conflict training” is the ideal model for this chunk. Other applications in this chunk should try to cut down the details in the researches following the model of “Intercultural conflict training”. It would be nice if you can make such changes to some of the applications. Last but the most important, there is no chunk in this article for the critiques this theory has received. It is important for a theory-introducing article to include such a chunk. Hence, here are the two references that I hope might give you a bit clue to develop the chunk of critiques:

Mohanty, D., & Mukherjee, S. (2018). Face negotiation and politeness in “interpreter of maladies.” IUP Journal of English Studies, 13(4), 71–78.

Fletcher, C., Nakazawa, M., Chen, Y., Oetzel, J., Ting-Toomey, S., Chang, S., & Zhang, Q. (2014). Establishing Cross-Cultural Measurement Equivalence of Scales Associated with Face-Negotiation Theory: A Critical Issue in Cross-Cultural Comparisons. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 7(2), 148–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2014.898364

ZhengyanCai (talk) 05:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Advanced Communication Theory
— Assignment last updated by Ianborton (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)